Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites

quote:

---

uh, no, that's exactly the opposite of what this verse proves. they wrote about having kings -- so it was written after they had kings. get it?

---

No sir. It could only be written when no kings existed, as a pointer to the other nations and the events in question; and by the fact it is stated by one who was not around when kings of israel appeared in the future. Its like Moses writing about Adam - before any other humans existed; the verses are retrospective to the narrative's and setting's spacetime.

quote:

---

and your point is still demonstrating great unfamiliarity with the OT. you probably meant "torah" but the OT was certain written and compiled after israel and judah had kings. heck, there's a book called "kings" that is so long it won't fit on a single scroll.

---

Of coz, only the Mosaic five books define the israelite and hebrew history pre and post ancient egypt. The other writings are post-Mosaic (Torah) descriptions of later events. These are categorised as OT by christianity, which lumps it all together, depending on what it sees as fitting the NT.

quote:

---

"jerusalem." if it never existed before, by that name, why is called by that in joshua? if it was only called "jerusalem" after david, when must this verse have been written? what about this one:
Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

---

The name 'JERUSALEM' was coined by Abraham and Melchizedek. One Prefered Yeru, the other argued for Shlayim; finally, both Hebrew words were combined, and Yerushalayim was settled with. The later narratives use this name retrospectively.

quote:

---

:
think again. salem = zion, the holy mountain of the most high god, yahweh. what is jerusalem, named during david's time, doing in genesis. when must this verse have been written?

---

David established Jerusalem as the Capital after defeating the Philistines; the name was established by Abraham; Jacob knew about the sacredness of this place and its name, as the point his father Isaac was offered as a sacrice by Abraham.

quote:

---

you apparently don't read MY comments either. you said they were sovereign until 70CE. i said "they weren't when they were under roman rule." roman rule extends at least until or past 70CE (i'm not terribly familiar with the history of palestine past the first century). they were under roman rule when christ was born. they were under roman rule in 70CE when they rebelled, and the romans burnt down the second temple. your statement is is just flat out wrong. they were NOT soverign until 70CE.

---

The distinction of being a vassal state under Rome was not the fulcrum issue here, but that this was the Jewish kingdom in 70CE. There was no such place as Palestine or christianity during Jesus' time - he was not a christian or European. Its historical revisionism, better allocated to a belief system only.

quote:

---

had you read the gospels, where christ is handed off to roman officials, and executed on a roman tortured device at the command of a roman prelate, pontious pilate, you might have known this.

---

And had you read actual history, you would have known that over 1 million other jews were executed by the Roman holocaust - unpardonably disregarded in the NT. Your use of the term 'rebellion'by the jews is somewhat naive here! How about:WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME ROME'S GREATEST WAR?

This is exactly what we have been saying Joseph.Moses could only write about Adam because he knew adam had lived. Thus the author speaking about before there were kings in Israel could only have written this if he knew there had been a king of Israel.It is exactly the same. The author knew Israel had a few Kings after the Edomites did. The verse makes no sense at all any other way.Brian.

quote:

---

you have no qualification to make any comment about the grammar of the bible when you cannot understand the grammar in translation, let alone having the ability to read any of the original.

---

The variant, grotesque and antithetical reading of this texts is yours, not mine. This is true by concencus, period of time, and almost every commentary throughout a host of writings by the sages in this spacetime between the OT and the last hebrew books before 70 CE; then again from that point to today. Subtle point?

Any chance of you supporting this statement?hat evidence do you have that this occurred? Sure there wasn't Christianity, but Herodotus wrote about Palestine 500 years before Jesus was born.The name Palestine is derived from the Philistines.

quote:

---

This is exactly what we have been saying Joseph.

​

Moses could only write about Adam because he knew adam had lived. Thus the author speaking about before there were kings in Israel could only have written this if he knew there had been a king of Israel.

​

It is exactly the same. The author knew Israel had a few Kings after the Edomites did. The verse makes no sense at all any other way.

---

Correction! Adam is vested in Moses' past; kings in Moses' future. Not quite exactly the same - the retrospective factor only applies with the past; where no time machine was required. Subtle point?

Double postEdited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Any chance of you supporting this statement?

​

hat evidence do you have that this occurred?

---

Its an abuse to the premise of proof.

quote:

---

There was no such place as Palestine or Christianity during Jesus' time.

​

Sure there wasn't Christianity, but Herodotus wrote about Palestine 500 years before Jesus was born.

​

The name Palestine is derived from the Philistines.

---

The philistines, a non-semetic peoples, spoke no Hebrew; Jerusalem is a hebrew name. The name Palestine was coined by Rome, as a reference to Israel's ancient enemies (the philistines) conquered by David a 1000 years earlier. There was never a land called Palestine before Rome's destruction of Jerusalem.

Exactly, that is why Moses could not have written this verse, unless he had a crystal ball or the time machine you mentioned.So, this verse had to be written after the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.Moses didnt write anything, Moses is a literary invention, its no big deal.Brian.

So you have no evidence at all. That's fair enough to be honest since no archaeologist has uncovered any proof of this in over a hundred years of excavation in the holy land. Palestine is just the English rendering of the latin Palaestina taken from the Greek Palaistinei mentioned by Herodotus 500 year before jesus, I thought you would be interested.Brian

quote:

---

Herodotus - Wikipedia

​

It is possible to see the dialectic theme of Persian power and its various excesses running like a 'red thread' throughout the narrative”cause and effect, hubris and fate, vengeance and violence.[citation needed] Even the strange and fantastic tales that are liberally sprinkled throughout the text find their source in this momentum. At every stage, a Persian monarch crosses a body of water or other liminal space and suffers the consequences: Cyrus attacks the Massagetae on the eastern bank of a river, and ends up decapitated; Cambyses attacks the Ethiopians to the south of Egypt, across the desert, and goes mad; Darius attacks the Scythians to the north and is flung back across the Danube; Xerxes lashes and then bridges the Hellespont, and his forces are crushed by the Greeks. Thus, though he strays (and sometimes strays rather far) off of this main course, he always returns to the task at hand”answering the question, how and why did the Greeks and Persians enter into the greatest conflict then known, and what were the consequences?[citation needed]

---

The above details, including the names of Cyrus and Darius, are first and better described in the Book of Esther. Cyrus is mentioned as the persian king who sanctioned the return of the jews to Judea and israel, and the rebuilding of the temple. That it is also mentioned in later, greek writings - is a vindication of the OT. This is uneffected by the discrepencies found in Herodotus' motivated writings:Herodotus:
Father of History, Father of LiesBy David Pipes
Herodotus - Wikipedia

I'm sorry but nothing in that corroborates the Old Testament. What that does is help corroborate the existence of Darius and Cyrus, but in no way does it support the existence of Esther or that there were Hebrews in Egypt at the time the alleged Exodus happened or that there was an Exodus or some imagined Conquest of Canaan.Darius I also lived from 549 to sometime in the late 480s BCE, or more than 1000 years after the Exodus was supposed to have happened and Cyrus the Great was only slightly earlier.Neither Darius I or Cyrus are in an way related to the question of the Exodus and even bringing them up simply shows no understanding of either history or what would be supporting evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's NUTS. There is no description of Babylon 2600 years ago better than that of the book of Esther. Its like reading the Sunday morning papers - the details are unequalled in its historicity, whereby a single passage says more than any other document. Stating so boldly that there is no corraboration is quiet ignorant: babylon invaded Israel and all Jews were exiled here; the Talmud was written here, and a number of revered figures are buried there. Your response is surely not worth catering to - sorry!

IAJ, if you are NOT going to discuss the Exodus and the Merneptah Stele, Please refrain from posting in this topic. Babylon, Darius, and Cyrus are not on topic.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

A few basic facts, mostly for the lurkers who may be reading the thread.The topic is: "Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites".The goal is to see if there is any evidence that might support the Exodus actually happening.That actual people who lived 1000 years after the supposed Exodus are mentioned in the Bible can be considered evidence when combined with other sources that those two people existed.It is NOT in anyway though support that the Exodus happened.Ivanhoe mentioned King Richard. There is additional evidence that King Richard actually lived, but the novel is fiction.The problem with your evidence is that the fact that actual people are mentioned is not evidence that the story is true, that the people you mention lived 1000 years after the supposed Exodus, and that it is in no way evidence in support of the actuality of the Exodus fiction.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion